United States Department of Agriculture
New Mexico Forest Inventory and Analysis:
American Recovery and Reinvestment Project
Field Report 2010-2012
Mary Stuever and John Capuano
Abstract
For a 3-year period, from 2010-2012, the New Mexico Forestry Division utilized contractors to collect Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data in New
Mexico. Funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the
State partnered with the Interior West FIA Program. Together, both agencies
collected data on approximately 6,450 plots. This effort represents the largest statewide inventory of forest and woodlands to date for New Mexico. The
data collection schedule deviated from standard FIA protocols of collecting
annual panels of data each year; in contrast, this project collected data on an
accelerated, compressed schedule that rapidly produced a current and comprehensive forest inventory dataset. Data analysis is published elsewhere
and the focus of this report is to document the process of the data collection.
Keywords: forest inventory and analysis (FIA), field procedures, partnership,
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), New Mexico
Stuever, Mary; Capuano, John. 2014. New Mexico Forest Inventory and
Analysis: American Recovery and Re­investment Act Project, Field Report:
2010-2012. Res. Note RMRS-RN-68. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 34 p.
Forest
Service
Rocky Mountain
Research Station
Research Note
RMRS-RN-68
1
August 2014
Introduction
In the spring of 2009 the State of New Mexico, EMNRD- Forestry
Division applied to the Southwest Region of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service) for a grant under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to collect
Forest Inventory & Analysis (FIA) data. The original request was for
$12 million based on estimates provided by Forest Service staff working on FIA. In October 2009, $4 million dollars was granted to the
State to do a portion of the collection.
This report documents processes, decisions, people, and actions that
were involved in this project. The primary audiences for this report
are those utilizing this data, undertaking a similar project, and/or interested in the finer details of this project. This report is organized
into three sections: Background, Implementation, and Discussion.
The Background Section describes the FIA program, the status of New
Mexico data at the start of this project, and the ARRA grant. The
Implementation Section discusses contracts and contractors including
participating Tribes, training and quality control for data collection,
landowner permission and denied access, and plot assignments and data
collection. The Discussion Section includes an explanation of projects
that were considered but not implemented, describes the involvement
of the New Mexico FIA users group, documents the functioning partnership that developed between State Forestry and the Forest Service
FIA program, outlines the future needs for FIA data in New Mexico,
and explores the potential impacts of newly collected FIA data for the
State.
This report does not address analysis of the data. The Forest Service
Interior West FIA Analysis team has developed a State report (Goeking
and others 2014) that provides general analysis of the data. The data is
also available on the internet through the Forest Service’s FIA website.
Background
Forest Inventory and Analysis Program and Data
The FIA program’s mission is to conduct and continuously update a
comprehensive inventory and analysis of the present and prospective
conditions of renewable resources of the forests of the United States.
The inventory consists of a grid of permanent sample locations known
as plots. Theoretically, each plot in the Interior West region is visited every 10 years. Not only is the current information from the plot
2
valuable, but the change in conditions since it was last visited provides
important trend information. Prior to 2000 data was collected as a
series of periodic inventories. Crews would cycle through each State
spending a few years collecting data upon which a report was written
for that State. When the data collection was completed for a state, the
crews moved on to the next state, returning on an approximate 10-year
interval. In the year 2000, the national FIA sample design was adapted
to involve an annual collection, such that data was collected each year
in each State. In the West, each state’s set of plots were divided into 10
annual panels. One tenth of the plots were to be visited each year. After
10 years, the process would start over again, with field crews visiting
the first set of plots in the eleventh year. This staggering of data collection allows for landscape scale events such as insect outbreaks and
mega-wildfires to be recorded in the years when the impact is greatest.
The plots are located on all jurisdictions including Federal, Tribal, State,
local governments, and private land. Landowners or managers are contacted to gain access to the plots. Landowners have the right to deny
access. Landowner privacy is an important part of the program, and
information about landowners is not available to the public. Tribal data
is also given special protection. Access to information that would allow
someone to determine that plots occur on specific Tribal lands requires
approval of the Tribe and Bureau of Indian Affairs representatives.
Although the program was initially developed to estimate marketable
timber volumes, over the years the data collected and data uses have
expanded to include measures of plant diversity; fuels and potential fire
hazards; condition of wildlife habitats; mortality and risks associated
with fire, insects, or disease; biomass and carbon storage; forest health;
and other general characteristics of forest ecosystems. The program
does not document or look for endangered species.
Data collection is a complex process that requires a natural resources
education. The field procedures manual that outlines how to collect the
data is over 400 pages in length and requires a professional background
to interpret. Generally, a two-person crew can collect all the necessary
data required for a plot in 1 day, though some plots may take longer.
History of FIA Data Collection in New Mexico
The Federal government has been collecting forest inventory data nationally since 1930. However, periodic inventory data collected in New
Mexico in the 1950s and 1960s followed different protocols (Choate
1966). Those inventories used aerial photographs to summarize large
areas of forest land and timber volume. Plot data either was not collected or was not retained from those inventories, so they are generally
3
not comparable to FIA data collected today (personal communication
with Sara Goeking, February 2013). However, there are three datasets
that were collected prior to this ARRA project. Two periodic inventories were conducted in New Mexico in the late 1980s and the late
1990s. Additional plots were established in the early 1990s on the Gila
National Forest.
The oldest FIA data currently available for analysis was collected in
New Mexico between 1985 and 1987. Due to budget constraints
approximately 1,100 forest plots were sampled. Most of these plots
were sampled using a protocol that called for a single fixed radius plot.
The Gila National Forest intensified this sample in 1993 and 1994 by
collecting data on more than 400 forest plots (O’Brien 2003). The protocol at that time used sub-plots with a variable radius methodology.
Another periodic inventory occurred in 1996 through 2000. However,
due to reduced budgets, many of the plots from the 1987 inventory were not revisited, but instead the growth was calculated for these
plots for the 2000 State report. The methodology in the 1999 sample
included 4 sub-plots with fixed radius similar to the layout used currently. Data was gathered on just over 8001 forest plots between 1996
and 1998, which was combined with earlier periodic data to summarize New Mexico’s forest resource in a second State report (O’Brien
2003).
As part of the 1999 inventory, FIA continued to collect data on nearly
340 additional forest plots in New Mexico until 2000, the same year
that the national FIA program switched to annual data collection. The
decision was made to defer collecting annual data in New Mexico, apparently because the State had a recent data set. However, each year,
due to budget constraints, the decision to collect data in New Mexico
continued to be deferred.
Since the earliest panel for New Mexico is designated as the 2005 panel,
it is clear the Federal program had intentions of gathering New Mexico
data; yet this was not happening. Meanwhile, a significant outbreak
of piñon bark beetles in the State between 2002 and 2004 was going
unrecorded, as well as the impact of major forest fires such as Cerro
Grande (2000) and the Ponil Complex (2002). State officials were becoming increasingly alarmed at the lack of action in collecting forest
inventory data in the State.
1 O’Brien reports 819 plots measured prior to publication of the 2000 report;
however, not all of these plots are utilized in the current database based on
updated definitions.
4
On February 15, 2007 Governor Bill Richardson sent a letter to U.S.
Forest Service Chief Abigail Kimball urging full funding for FIA data
collection in New Mexico. The letter cited the need for a Statewide
Assessment identified in the State’s Forest and Watershed Health
Plan and explained that current FIA data would be necessary for this
assessment.
Forest Service FIA crews started collecting data from the 2008 annual
panel in 2008, and continued on the same panel in 2009; they collected data on 453 forest plots during this time period. The majority
of the plots visited during this time were on Federal land. The crews
worked in the State on a temporary basis at the beginning and ending
of field seasons in other States.
NM – FIA ARRA Grant
In 2009, the State Forester met with the director of the Rocky
Mountain Research Station, the director of the Interior West FIA program, the Southwest Regional Forester, and representatives from the
New Mexico congressional delegation to discuss the lack of current and
comprehensive FIA data for New Mexico. At the time, grant proposals for hazardous fuels projects were being solicited from the Forestry
Division through the U.S. Forest Service for the newly established
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) program. The professionals from the congressional delegation offices urged the State to
also submit a proposal for collecting the lacking FIA data utilizing the
ARRA program funding.
FIA data collection was identified as the State of New Mexico’s Forestry
Division’s highest priority for ARRA funding. The project would have
a favorable ratio of funds spent on worker income versus equipment
expenses, and the data would directly benefit economic development
within the State on many levels. The project would also build capacity within the State to continue data collection and avoid future data
gaps. Despite the ranking and the logical argument, the project was
not funded in the first round of allocations, but did get approved by
October of 2009.
The State has managed the program in cooperation with the U.S.
Forest Service’s Interior West FIA program under a memorandum of
understanding (Appendix A). Utilizing ARRA funding, the State contracted the data collection to private contractors and local Tribes. With
regular FIA program funds, Forest Service inspectors collected additional data in the State and insured the data collected by contractors
met national program standards.
5
Information has been gathered on all jurisdictions; coordination includes working with the New Mexico State Forestry, New Mexico State
Land Office, the Southwest Region and the Rocky Mountain Research
Station of the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management New
Mexico State Office, various Department of Defense facilities, National
Parks and Monuments, many city and county governments, dozens of
Native Tribes, and thousands of private landowners.
Implementation
Contracts and Contractor Selection
Contractors were selected following New Mexico State law, procedures
and policies. There were two solicitations, one in the spring of 2010
and one in the spring of 2011. A Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional services (due to the depth of professional knowledge required
to complete inventory plots) was posted on the Division’s website.
Additional outreach included developing a list of 26 potential contractors from agencies that had previous FIA contracts. A special outreach
effort was made to forestry contractors in New Mexico and to Tribes
with natural resource management programs. Prior to advertising the
RFP, the project was presented to the New Mexico Abilities, a stateaffiliated non-profit agency, who advised the State that they had no
potential qualified providers.
Six proposals were submitted in 2010 and three contractors were selected: Chestnut Ridge Forestry, South Wind Conservation Inc., and
SWCA Environmental Consultants. Contract amounts could not exceed $1 million dollars and assignments were made between the three
companies based on capacity. For the RFP posted in the spring of
2011, six bids were received and three contractors selected: Chestnut
Ridge Forestry, South Wind Conservation Inc., and SBH Contracting.
Assignments were again made based on capacity.
One lesson learned with these contracts was that each contract designated specific plots to be completed by that contractor; therefore,
changing plot assignments due to access or other issues required a contract amendment. Each of these contracts was amended three times,
which is the maximum number of allowable amendments. Therefore
in 2011 for the next round of contracts, the new personal service agreements did not include plot assignments; instead, plots were assigned
by work orders. There were between 6 and 16 work orders on each of
these contracts adjusting plot assignments. The other major difference
between the 2010 contracts and the 2011 contracts was to raise the
6
Quality Control standard from 85% to 90% to conform with FIA’s
national data collection protocols.
Plots were grouped into various categories for bidding. All plots were
Phase 2 (P2) plots but were divided into P2 regular or P2 marginal
categories based on the status of the plot as undeniable forest land or
possible forest land. Any plot that meets the FIA definition of “forest
land” requires further field measurements, while any plot that does
not meet that definition is recorded as non-forest and does not have
additional data collected. A visit type value from the FIA field database
(MIDAS) was used to determine the classification. P2 regular plots had
a visit value of 1 (forest) or 2 (woodland) that had been determined in
the office during plot preparation. P2 marginal plots had visit values of
3-5, which indicated that office staff was uncertain the plot met conditions to require a field sample, but did require a field visit to make that
determination. Federal crews commonly refer to P2 marginal plots as
“checker” plots. Table 1 lists the successful bid prices for the 2010 contracts and table 2 lists the successful bid prices for the 2011 contracts.
Table 1—2010 Successful bid prices for contracts ( All prices are per plot).
Offerers
Project manager
Project size
Price range - regular
Price range - marginal
Bernalillo, Navajo Nation,
Rio Grande Pueblos,
Western Pueblos
$1526.53 - $1593.42
$854.86 - $879.90
$1048 - $1325
$840 - $890
$791.12
$631.43
SWCA
Coleman Burnett
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Joel Fyock
All
J. Ike Wennihan
All but RG Pueblos;
Western Pueblos; and
Mescalero
Southwind Wind
Conservation, Inc.
Table 2—2011 Successful bid prices for contracts ( All prices are per plot).
Offerers
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Project manager
Joel Fyock
Project size
All
Southwind Wind
Conservation, Inc. J. Ike Wennihan
All but Cimarron
District
SBH Contracting
Capitan, Chama,
Cimarron Districts
Stuart Hall
7
Price range - regular
Price range - marginal
$888 - $928
$725 - $765
$1175 - $1200
$900-$925
$1,100
$850
Tribal Participation
Although no Tribes bid on the statewide contract, Tribes were provided the opportunity to collect the data on their own Tribal lands, as
allowed by the State-Tribal Collaboration Act. Initially four Tribes opted to participate: Navajo Nation, Mescalero Apache, Pueblo of Santa
Clara, and Ramah Navajo. Work plans were developed under existing
Joint Powers Agreements for Navajo Nation, Mescalero Apache, and
the Pueblo of Santa Clara. We were not able to develop an agreement
with Ramah Navajo due to unresolved issues of contract legality. In
the fall of 2011 the Pueblo of Taos offered to participate. There were
multiple delays with their agreement; it was not approved by the State
until late summer in 2012, which conflicted with the Tribe’s hunting
program so they had to decline the agreement.
Tribes did not bid on the project and were offered a flat fee of $1200
per plot (no distinction between P2 regular and marginal plots was
made). Table 3 list the number of plots for which each Tribe collected
data on their reservation.
Table 3—Number of plots contracted
to tribes.
Tribe
Plots
Navajo Nation
186
Mescalero Apache Tribe
Pueblo of Santa Clara
41
6
Training and Quality Control
High quality data is essential to the effectiveness of the FIA database.
Over the years, the Forest Service has developed a complex Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) process. Rather than re-invent the wheel, the State adopted and adapted the existing QA/QC
program. This section discusses contract requirements, training, inspections, blind check plots, and problem resolutions. Throughout our
QA/QC process, we had an excellent collaboration between Federal
Forest Service staff, State Forestry staff, and contractors. One of the
key contributing factors to this success was frequent communication.
Contract Requirements—Our intention in the contract was to have
identical standards for Quality Assurance/Quality Control as required
by the Forest Service crews. Unfortunately, due to miscommunication,
our contracts in 2010 listed the passing score for a quality control inspection as 85%. After the contracts were issued, we learned that the
FS crews were required to earn a score of 90% to pass. Fortunately,
8
we had very few passing scores under 90%, and in most cases this
was due to a missed tree or another mistake that was easily corrected
for that plot. The 2010 contracts with the 85% minimum included
the first contracts for South Wind Conservation, Inc.; Chestnut Ridge
Forestry; the contract for SWCA Environmental Consultants; and the
work plans for Mescalero Apache, Navajo Nation, and the Pueblo of
Santa Clara. The 2011 contracts for Chestnut Ridge Forestry, South
Wind Conservation, and SBH Contracting required a score of 90% to
pass the quality control inspection.
A sample copy of the 2011 contract is provided in Appendix B. The
Scope of Work required contractors to adhere to the Interior West
Forest Inventory & Analysis P2 Field Procedures, commonly referred
to as the field manual. The 2010 contract referenced Version 4.0 of this
manual for the 2010 and 2011 field seasons. Version 4.0 refers to both
the field manual and the MIDAS software program used to collect data
on digital data recorders. An amendment to the 2011 contracts and the
continuing Tribal work plans referenced Version 5.0 for the 2012 field
season2. The Scope of Work also required the contractors to gain legal
access to each plot. Although contractors were not paid for plots where
access was denied, they were required to document the denial before
receiving new plot assignments. The language regarding inspections is
located under the Compensation heading.
Training—The primary goal of the ARRA FIA project was to collect
quality data that would meet or exceed the quality of data collected by
Federal crews. Therefore, an FIA training workshop was held in Silver
City from June 17 to June 24, 2010, to train the crew leaders who were
working for each of the contractors and Tribal programs. Students included 46 contracted staff and eight staff from State Forestry (Appendix
C). Approximately nine Federal FIA staff provided the training on data
collection methods and the use of portable data recorders using MIDAS
software (Appendix D). Several specialty instructors provided sessions
for identifying insects, diseases and habitat types. Following this training session, contractors were responsible for additional training for the
staff and any new hires. Several contractors spent additional days with
crew leaders working together on the same plots until they felt they
had developed thorough competence to work alone or in pairs. Most
training of new hires after this initial training course occurred in a
2 While
the USFS crews started using the Version 5.0 manual in other States
for the 2011 Field Season, the plan in New Mexico was to complete the
ARRA project by December 2011 so the decision was made not to switch
protocols for 2011. Once the decision was made to extend contracts to 2012,
it was imperative to switch the data collection to the Version 5.0 manual for
the 2012 field season.
9
one-on-one environment. In 2011 a single individual successfully bid
and received a contract. He spent several days with Federal crew leaders
to come up to speed on specific FIA inventory requirements.
Additional 2-day trainings were sponsored by the State in February and
April of 2012 to review the changes from the Version 4.0 to Version
5.0 of MIDAS and the field manual. These workshops were held at
the Sevilleta Long Term Ecological Research station near La Joya, New
Mexico. Contractors also attained access to the national MIDAS database; in 2012 crew leaders, rather than inspectors, were responsible for
loading data and photos for each plot.
Equipment—Contractors were required by the contract to provide all
of the field gear necessary for installing and measuring plots. However,
the Forest Service chose to provide some of the supplies to ensure consistency throughout the survey: RP and witness tree tags, steel and
aluminum nails, sample envelopes for leaf samples, and micro-climate
sensors. In addition, the State provided heavy gauge wire for use as plot
center stakes. A list of recommended field equipment is included in
Appendix E.
Contractors were required to provide a data recorder for each crew
leader. The type of data recorder was limited because it had to have the
capability to run the MIDAS software. Many cheaper data recorders
are available that work fine for continuous forest inventory and other
inventories; however, the devices that handle the MIDAS software are
more expensive. This cost was anticipated upfront and emphasized
with potential bidders. The U.S. Forest Service crews use the Juniper
Allegra, and those contractors who purchased this device were able to
get more specific assistance in trouble shooting software problems.
The other device that required a higher level of accuracy was the GPS
unit. National FIA protocols require that GPS units are capable of averaging to provide more accurate location information.
Quality Control Inspections—Inspections were handled by seasoned,
well-qualified Forest Service FIA crew leaders who worked for the
Interior West FIA Program. The majority of the inspections were done
by three individuals: Jim Dexter, Dave Herwig, and John Capuano;
however, there were times when other Forest Service personnel helped
out, particularly at the end of each field season. The State developed a
plot packet handling protocol (Appendix F) and provided procedures
for bundling packets into sets and submitting them for inspection.
The inspectors followed standard protocols that provided for scoring a
sample that represented 10% of each set of plots. Generally, there were
10 plots turned in for each set, and an inspector would select one plot
10
to visit. Based on contract language, the minimum passing score varied
between 85% and 90%. However, only a few of the passing scores were
below 90%, and most scores were above 95%.
Contract crew leaders were in direct communication with the inspectors to arrange drop off points for the sets. Crew leaders would print
out the reports generated by the MIDAS software and leave them in
each packet. At the same time, crew leaders or contractors were required to send an email to the ARRA project manager, the ARRA
grants manager, and the Forest Service FIA supervisor for New Mexico
and Arizona to initiate tracking the set through the inspection and
payment process. However, this step was often missed, and the State
did not learn of the sets until they received an inspection report from
the Inspectors.
For the most part, this process worked with one major exception. At
the end of 2011 and in early 2012, the usual inspectors were not available; however, the crew leaders with the Navajo Forestry program were
finishing up their assignments. The personnel assigned to inspect the
plots during this time period did not provide inspection reports to
the State and it took over a year to determine which plots had or had
not been completed. In addition, the use of varied personnel on this
project was frustrating for the crew leaders because of the variation in
expectations among the various inspectors.
Blind Check Plots—Another aspect of the QA/QC program is to have
field crews revisit plots that another crew has completed. The second
crew does not have access to the original crew’s data, so these are referred
to as blind check plots. Analysts use the data to identify the reliability
of the values collected, or quality assessment. The programmatic goal
is to collect this data on 3% of the plots. In 2010, blind check plots
were only assigned within each contractor group, so although the blind
plot check was done by a different crew leader, they both worked for
the same company. In 2011 and 2012 there were some cross-company
assignments. A total of 134 blind plots were completed by contractors,
which represented 3.4% of the total number of plots inventoried in the
contract program.
The selection of blind plots included some bias, because selected plots
were generally on public lands where access would not be a major issue.
Also, plots that were identified in the first visit as non-forest land were
generally not selected as blind plots. Because blind plot assignments
were being made before the first visit, this was achieved by only selecting plots that had a visit value of 1 (forest) or 2 (woodlands). When an
access problem arose due to weather, terrain, or access permission the
plot was removed from the contractor list and a different blind plot
was assigned.
11
Ideally, the programmatic goal is to have blind plots visited within a
month of the original assignment. Since blind plots were assigned with
regular plots and there were no contract specifications on when these
plots were completed, there were some blind plots that were inventoried the field season after the original data collection. Any assigned
blind plots that had catastrophic disturbance (wildfire) was removed
and replaced if the fire occurred after the first visit but before the second visit.
Landowner Permission and Denied Access
One of the most critical coordination tasks for the field collection of
FIA data is acquiring permission and access to the plots. Not only
is this important for private lands, but each jurisdiction has its own
requirements. This section will discuss land access issues for private
landowners, State Trust Lands, Tribal access, Department of Defense
access, National Park Service access, and access issues on public land
administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the National
Forests. In addition, special situations, such as recently burned areas,
require additional access considerations.
Many of the issues described here are not unique to New Mexico but
are also relevant to other States. They are described here for the purpose of documenting how this project dealt with those issues and the
lessons that were learned. The aspects of the New Mexico forest inventory that are unique, relative to other States, is that the State Forester’s
office handled most requests and communicated extensively with private landowners and Tribal representatives; that the denied access rate
was higher on private lands than it typically is in other States; and that
the ARRA project manager, rather than Forest Service staff, was able
to facilitate access to plots across all jurisdictions within New Mexico.
In keeping with the national FIA privacy policy, plot locations are not
released. The first reason is to protect the privacy of landowners and
the resources on their land. The second reason is to protect the plot
location from being managed differently than the surrounding forests,
so that the plot is representative of the surrounding area.
In the FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PL 106-113),
Congress included language that modified the Food Security Act
of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 2276(d)) to add FIA data collection to a list of
items requiring confidential treatment. Among other things, the law
prevents FIA from disclosing sample locations in such a way that individual ownership can be determined, and specifies criminal penalties
for violations. Current FIA policy (Forest Service Handbook Interim
Directive number 4809.11-2003-1) permits public release of FIA
12
sample coordinates rounded to the nearest 1/2 to 1 mile with a random
set of locations swapped within a State. Such inexact coordinates prevent association of individual sample locations with individual owners,
but will still meet the needs of users looking for approximate geographical location of data.
The following principles have been developed to implement this policy:
• We obtain landowner permission prior to collecting data.
• We never release the name or address of private landowners to
the general public.
• We require any person or organization providing products or
services to FIA to protect the confidentiality of FIA information
on our behalf through a data security certification process.
• We allow reporting of data only in such a manner that individual
landowners cannot be identified.
One of the primary cooperator categories for the Forestry Division in
New Mexico is private landowners. Foresters for the State also work
closely with the State Land Office, the State’s Department of Game
and Fish, and the State Parks. The Forestry Division has also been
directed to take a leadership role in coordinating multi-jurisdictional cooperation across the landscape. To maintain and enhance these
relationships, the State decided to directly manage the landowner permission aspect of this project. State officials were optimistic that their
long-term, positive history of working with private landowners, State
and Federal agencies, and Tribes would pave the way for lower access
denied percentages. On the contrary, the actual level of access denied
plots (15% for all jurisdictions and 38% for private land3) ended up
setting a regional record for highest rate of access denied in any of the
western States. This situation is further considered in the discussion
section of this report.
Access on Private Lands—The land ownership category is initially
determined through GIS layers in the Ogden office and then sent to
the field for verification. Federal crew leaders made visits to court houses and utilized online databases to build a spreadsheet of individual
landowners and addresses. This spreadsheet and sample letters that the
Forest Service had previously used were supplied to the State. In the
3 These
figures represent the percentage of access denied with the plots that
were sent to the field. FIA often reports the percentage of denied access out
of all plots, including those that do not leave the office. In New Mexico, the
overall percentages would be about 8% for all jurisdictions and 14% for
private lands.
13
spring of 2010, the State sent letters from the State Forester to 1,250
private landowners requesting access to 1,460 plots (a sample letter and
return permission form are provided in Appendix G and Appendix H).
By August of 2010, landowners representing 39% of the plots had
returned forms with 77% granting access to the plot. A second round
of letters was sent in late summer to landowners who had not yet responded. Crew leaders were also encouraged to locate landowners in
person to acquire necessary permission. A third set of permission request letters went out in the spring of 2011.
One of the primary conflicts crews encountered in the field were landowners unwilling to grant access permission during the fall hunting
seasons. Elk hunting in particular is a primary source of income for
New Mexico ranchers. This conflict was particularly problematic in
2011 when contracts were expiring and contractors had spent the summer on public plots that were easier to access. By the time they were
tackling the private plots, landowners who were otherwise willing to
participate needed to limit access to their ranch for hunting. Aware of
this concern, many crews worked with landowners to operate on the
land between 10 a.m. and 2 or 3 p.m. to insure that their operations
did not upset a hunt.
When it became apparent that contractors were not going to finish by
December of 2011, and that a large number of privately owned plots
remained unsurveyed, the State extended the 2011 contracts and the
work plans for two Tribes that had not completed their plots. Since
the initial landowner permission letters had only asked for access up
through December 31, 2011, landowners were sent letters in the spring
of 2012. After May of 2012, no additional letters were sent to landowners, although crews continued to call and contact individuals in
the field.
Throughout the 3 years of the project, employees from State Forestry,
the Forest Service, and the contractors spent many hours with landowners discussing the program and the importance of gaining access.
Here are some of the highlights of those discussions.
• There is generally little direct benefit for a private landowner
in granting permission to the site. Landowners may benefit in
the long run from having general information about the state’s
resources that can lead to funding programs that could possibly
help the landowner down the road.
• Crew leaders are gathering specific information on forests, trees,
and common plants. They are not looking for endangered species
and are instructed not to record them (unless plant species
exceed 5% cover, which did not happen) and not to share any
14
information with others on any resource related observations
that they make on private land.
• When asked, crew leaders work directly with the landowner
to schedule the visit and comply with any reasonable requests
the landowner makes. In general, gates are left as they are
found (open or shut) and vehicle traffic remains on established
roadways.
• Landowners were offered the opportunity to request the State
report and a report on their plot. Not all crew leaders were
aware of this option and expressed regret towards the end of the
program that they did not offer this service to the landowners
they worked with. Thirty-eight reports were requested in 20102011 and three reports were requested in 2012.
• Several landowners, especially those with mesquite dominated
lands, refused to participate in the program because they viewed
the survey as a waste of taxpayer’s money.
• Several landowners denied access because they preferred no
unnecessary government involvement with their land.
• Sharpies were the preferred writing tool employed by landowners
denying access.
• Several landowners were surprised to learn a previously measured
FIA plot was on property that they owned at the time it had
been measured.
• Several landowners denying access requested their plot be
removed from our list. They were surprised to be told that it
was not possible to remove the plot, and that the plot might be
measured in the future after they were gone. This information
invariably brought a different perspective to the conversation.
• The majority of landowners who asked for additional information
about the program to determine whether to grant access or not,
chose to grant access once all of their questions and concerns
had been addressed.
There were only a few incidents of irate landowners contacting the
State Forester in 3 years. Considering that crews interacted with thousands of landowners and land managers, this seems like a reasonable
response rate. There were also a few instances where data was gathered
on a plot that did not have permission. In one case, the State refused
to pay for the data collection of the plot because of the implied trespass. The State requested that this data be expunged from the national
database.
15
One non-profit organization sent an email to their membership urging members to deny access. When the State’s ARRA project manager
contacted the organization’s executive director to explain the program
and mitigate the situation, the executive director denied that the email
had been sent. The State chose to drop the issue. Several landowners
shared the email and explained they were denying access based on the
email’s advice.
Access on State Trust Lands—In New Mexico, State Trust Lands are
managed by the State Land Office and do not have general public access. State Lands managed by other State agencies, such as State Parks
or the New Mexico Department of Game & Fish, have different access
protocols. Prior to this project, several crew leaders working for the
Forest Service in other States had come to New Mexico assuming they
had access to plots on all State lands. As a result, the State Land Office
was aware of the trespass issue on State Trust Lands and wary about
granting access permission. State Forestry employees and State Land
Office employees worked together to resolve the issue.
The mission of the State Land Office is to generate revenue to beneficiaries. Although the agency recognized the benefit of the inventory
for State management, a small fee was charged for a 3-year permit that
included the contractors and the Forest Service crews. The permit required the crew leader to notify the surface lease owner of the day
and location where they would be. If the plot had public access to the
State Trust land, there were no other requirements. If accessing the plot
required crossing private land on a private road, then the crew leader
was required to secure access permission. State Land Office District
Managers often assisted field crews with communicating with State
Land Office lessees.
A form was developed to guide the crew leader through the permission
process. Crew leaders were required to carry a copy of the permit and
a permit amendment list that showed the plot they were working on.
These lists were generated by the ARRA project manager and sent to
the State Land Office each time a new panel was added to the inventory. Contractors were provided an initial listing of State Trust Land
plots with surface landowners, but also were encouraged to look up
lease holder contact information online through the State Land Office
website. A copy of the State Land Office permit and a blank form is
included in appendices H and I.
Access on Tribal Lands—The primary consideration when working
with Tribes is that each Tribe is a sovereign nation and has its own way
of conducting business. Many Tribes have their own natural resource
management, forestry, and realty offices that oversee this type of access.
16
Unless the ARRA project manager had a working relationship with the
forestry or natural resource management department, the initial contact with a Tribe was a letter from the State Forester to the Governor or
Tribal Chairperson requesting access. In those cases where a previous
relationship existed, the ARRA project manager contacted the Tribal
employee to request the most appropriate pathway for securing permission. Usually, having a person working with the Tribe facilitated the
permission request.
Prior to advertising the RFP, State officials reached out to Tribes to see
if any Tribes were interested in collecting FIA data on their own lands,
or in bidding to collect the data on other lands. The State viewed the
project as an excellent capacity building opportunity for Tribal forestry
programs. A meeting was held between interested Tribal officials at the
Intertribal Timber Council meeting held in Ruidoso in April 2010.
Initially there were four Tribes interested in collecting their own FIA
data, and no Tribes actually bid on the RFP. However, in anticipation
that some Tribes might wish to bid, plots on Tribal Lands were placed
in two separate line items.
In 2010, SWCA Environmental Consultants received both of these
line items based on their bids. The firm had worked with many of the
Tribes in the past, and, in general, managed Tribal relationships well.
Many lessons were learned, and contractors, crew leaders, and State officials worked with Tribal leaders to help facilitate the process. As with
private landowners, the Tribes had the option to deny access. Several
of the pueblos exercised this option. As additional panels were added
to the project, it was necessary to contact Tribal officials again. SWCA
had prepared a useful database of contacts that helped facilitate this
process.
There was one incident on Tribal lands that resulted in the program
discontinuing any attempts to access those plots. A crew had reached a
plot towards the end of the day and established the center point. When
they returned to the plot the next day, two Victor leg-hold traps had
been set beneath their center pin. Fortunately the crew detected and
set off the traps without injury. Through resulting cooperation with
Tribal officials it was learned that a Tribal contract trapper had set the
traps, rationalizing that coyotes were likely to investigate a place where
humans had been. He claimed no mal intent towards the crew. All parties agreed though it was better to stop the data collection that year on
that reservation.
Access on Department of Defense Facilities—There are several large
facilities under the direction of the Department of Defense with FIA
plots, including the White Sands Missile Range and Fort Bliss Military
17
Reservation. To reduce access burden on these installations, all military
plots were assigned to one contracting firm. Chestnut Ridge Forestry
worked closely with the base officials and had select crew leaders attend specialized training to be on the facilities and utilize escorts when
necessary. Due to proximity of unexploded ordinance or scheduled
bombing events, some plots were denied access.
Access on National Park Service Lands—The National Park Service
has a rather lengthy permitting process that the FIA office adheres to
under a nationwide Memorandum of Understanding between the FIA
Program and the National Park Service. Therefore, Forest Service staff
worked with the State and contractors to secure necessary permits for
access to parks and monuments. Access to Bandelier Monument was
complicated by the 2011 Las Conchas Fire (see additional access issues
below.)
Access on Bureau of Land Management Lands—Although BLM
lands are public and generally open to public access, some BLM lands
require access through private land. Crews were required to get permission to cross private land on private roads. Crews were encouraged to
check in with local BLM districts to get information on landowners,
issues, and other information that would help them access their plots.
Access on National Forest Lands—Like BLM lands, National Forest
lands also generally have public access, though crews may need to get
access through private and Tribal lands in some cases. At the Silver City
training, the Gila Zone Manager requested that crews check in with
the local zone offices when they were working in the area. Although all
crew leaders may not have followed this advice, throughout the course
of the project there were no complaints about FIA contractors being on
National Forest lands.
Access to Land Managed by Other Agencies—There were other agencies that had permitting processes and required various forms and
authorization. These included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
New Mexico Department of Game & Fish, and the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District.
Additional Access Issues—Both 2011 and 2012 posed additional access issues due to large wildfires burning in the State. Crew leaders
stayed away from areas that were actively experiencing fire; but often
after a large fire, vast regions were administratively closed because of
hazard from falling trees, persistent hot spots, and flash flooding. The
ARRA project manager generally contacted the appropriate resource
manager of the burn site to determine if permission could be granted, and crew leaders were given safety briefings before entering these
18
recently burned lands. These plots were particularly challenging because existing roads were often compromised or impassable.
Only one incident was reported of a crew member being threatened
with a gun. The individual did not wish to have the incident investigated, but wanted to be sure no one was sent out to the site.
Plot Assignments and Data Collection
Prior to each field season, Forest Service FIA staff determines which
plots come to the field for inventory. Plots are reviewed in the office
to determine if they are forest (timberland or woodland), non-forest,
or needing a determination in the field. If the office crew can identify
from interpretation of aerial imagery that the plot does not include any
forest, the information for the plot is gathered in the office and the
plot never reaches the field. Our ARRA project was devoted to only
conducting surveys on those plots needing a field visit.
For plots needing a field visit, a plot packet was prepared by FIA staff.
The packet included maps, aerial photos, and various forms used to record location and sketch a map, capture tree canopy information, take
photos, and so forth. The packets were packaged in a specially sized
manila envelope. Throughout the course of the project, the management of plot packets was a key activity for the State and the contractors.
The penalty for contractors losing a packet was $100; as a result, only a
few packets were lost (and these were stolen along with the contractor’s
inventory gear). A few packets were also misplaced and so duplicate
sets were made. Considering the handling of over 4,000 plot packets,
the control protocol was quite successful.
The first set of plots considered for the ARRA project consisted of the
2005-2011 panels, including the remainder of the 2008 panel that had
been partially completed by FS crews in 2008 and 2009. This provided
a total pool of 4,412 plots needing field visits. At the start of the 2010
field season, 1,511 plots were retained for Forest Service crews to work
on and 2,801 plots were assigned to contractors and Tribes. Each plot
was identified by a code that consisted of a county code and plot number. Both the county code and the plot number are necessary, since plot
numbers assigned for each county start at one. We used this unique
combination identifier to assign plots to the contractors. If the crew
leader failed to find the old plot and re-established a new plot center,
a new plot number was assigned in MIDAS; however, for payment
purposes the old plot number was used for invoicing.
In 2010, plots were split up among the contractors by the line items
from the RFP with the exception of plots in wilderness areas, which
19
were assigned geographically adjacent to each contractor’s other assignments. Most assignments followed New Mexico State Forestry District
boundaries. Chestnut Ridge was assigned the eastern half of the State,
including the Cimarron, Las Vegas, and Capitan District plots, and
all of the Department of Defense plots. South Wind Conservation
was assigned the Chama District and the Socorro District plots, and
the bulk of the wilderness plots since these areas included the Gila,
Aldo Leopold and Apache Kid wildernesses. The two Tribal line items
(Western Pueblos and Rio Grande Pueblos) and the Bernalillo District
plots went to SWCA. The Navajo Nation plots were assigned to the
Navajo Tribal Forestry program, the Mescalero plots were assigned to
the Mescalero Department of Resource Management Protection, and
the Santa Clara plots were assigned to Santa Clara Tribal Forestry. The
Ramah Navajo plots were not assigned, pending an agreement developing between the State and the Ramah Forestry program.
As plots were denied access, amendments to the contracts swapped out
the original assignments with new plots. There was some flexibility
between the plots assigned to the Forest Service and the State. For example, when a large landowner required crews to sign a specific liability
release4, those plots were transferred from the Forest Service pool to
the contractor pool because administratively the contractors were able
to sign the release. Contract amendments require several weeks to a
month to work through the State’s administrative processes, so when
a new RFP was issued in 2011, these contracts utilized administrative
work orders for plot assignments that were processed within the division administration and could be executed in approximately 1 week.
Therefore, the State chose to close out the 2010 contracts at the end
of 2011, and only carry forward the 2011 contracts. Table 4 shows
the contract documents and effective dates. More funds became available for field collection because the access denied rate was larger than
expected and the State decided not to use funds originally targeted for
analysis. Therefore, in the fall of 2010, project managers added the
2012 panel to the pool of plots. In 2011, the State determined it did
not need the full allocation for administrative costs and moved more
of the funding into contracting, so the 2013 panel was added to the pool.
About the same time, Forest Service staff from the Southwest Region requested that approximately 57 plots that were included in large fires
from the 2011 fire season be re-measured by the ARRA project.
4 The
existing laws that protect landowners are the Federal Tort Claims Act
(for damages incurred) and the Worker’s Compensation Act (for liability).
Collectively they offer the landowner liability protection, but in a Federally
legislated form. The flexibility to transfer the plots to private contractors saved
staff time that would have been needed to work out the details for both the
landowner and the government.
20
21
Amend 2
Amend 3
Mod 1
Mod 2
AmendmentPSA
AmendmentPSA
PSA
AmendmentPSA
AmendmentPSA
PSA
AmendmentPSA
AmendmentPSA
AmendmentPSA
JPA/work
plan
JPA/work
plan
Work plan
modification
JPA/work
plan
Work plan
modification
Work plan
modification
PSA
AmendmentPSA
AmendmentPSA
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
SWCA Environmental
SWCA Environmental
SWCA Environmental
SWCA Environmental
Mescalero Apache
Tribe
Pueblo of Santa Clara
Pueblo of Santa Clara
The Navajo Nation
The Navajo Nation
The Navajo Nation
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Mod 1
Amend 2
Amend 1
Amend 1
Amend 2
Amend 1
Amend 3
Amend 2
Amend 1
AmendmentPSA
Change
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Type
PSA
r
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Contracto
Table 4—Contract Documents.
10-521-23010304
10-521-9999280
11-521-99990232
10-521-23010264
09-521-400420072
10-521-401870281
10-521-9999282
Contract ID
added funds
extend date to 12/31/12
Initial PSA, assign value to contract.
add 2012 field season plots and adjust budget
remove P3 assist and extend date
Initial work plan, assign value and plots to contract.
extend date
Initial work plan, assign value and plots to contract.
Initial work plan, assign value and plots to contract.
remove turn in and access denied plots (145) and add tribal plots (6)
remove access denied and add 2012 panel plots
remove access denied and add blind plots
Initial PSA, assign value and plots to contract.
remove access denied and add 2012 panel plots
remove access denied and add blind plots
Initial PSA, assign value and plots to contract.
Remove access denied and Singleton plots (47) and added “turn in” plots (47) from SWCA
Removed excess blind & access denied plots (47); added high elev. blind plots and new
2012 panel plots (42).
Removed access denied plots (163) and added 2012 plots (249) & low elevation blind plots
(49).
Initial PSA, assign value and plots to contract.
Purpose
$727,510.00
$552,000.00
$552,000.00
$226,200.00
$226,200.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$47,400.00
$950,000.00
$950,000.00
$950,000.00
$950,000.00
$950,000.00
$950,000.00
$950,000.00
$950,000.00
$950,000.00
$950,000.00
$950,000.00
Contract Value
$225,600.00
$226,200.00
$226,200.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$47,400.00
$554,679.82
$780,005.00
$707,456.00
$709,991.04
$780,164.22
$779,888.82
$779,910.81
$949,334.00
$948,912.00
$948,082.00
$872,510.00
Value assigned
$72,549.00
($2,535.04)
$275.40
($21.99)
$422.00
$830.00
$75,572.00
$
($600.00)
-
($225,325.18)
change in
value
3/29/2012
12/8/2011
4/22/2011
8/2/2012
12/30/2011
10/15/2011
12/29/2011
6/9/2010
6/23/2010
10/4/2011
4/7/2011
1/26/2011
5/14/2010
3/22/2011
1/27/2011
5/18/2010
10/5/2011
3/24/2011
12/13/2010
5/14/2010
Signed by
Contractor
4/19/2012
12/16/2011
5/9/2011
8/13/2012
12/31/2011
1/6/2011
12/29/2011
6/10/2010
6/30/2010
10/13/2011
4/25/2011
2/2/2011
6/2/2011
3/31/2011
2/7/2011
6/3/2010
10/13/2013
4/15/2011
12/23/2010
6/7/2010
Effective
Date
22
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
PSA
AmendmentPSA
AmendmentPSA
AmendmentPSA
AmendmentPSA
Work Order
Work Order
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
Type
AmendmentPSA
r
Chestnut Ridge
Forestry
Contracto
wo #2
wo #1
Amend 4
Amend 3
Amend 2
Amend 1
wo#15
wo#14
wo#13
wo#12
wo#11
wo#10
wo#9
wo#8
wo#7
wo #6
wo #5
wo #4
wo #3
wo #2
wo #1
Amend 3
Change
Contract ID
11-521-9999-20231
Table 4—Contract Documents (Continued).
3 new Animas plots + wilderness plots
Initial assignment of 91plots.
added funds
added funds
extend date to 12/31/12
added funds
Initial PSA, assign value to contract.
replace access denied
replace access denied
replace access denied
replace access denied
replace access denied
replace access denied
replace access denied
new assignments & replace access denied
replace access denied
new assignments & replace access denied
replace access denied
remove all 2010-11 plots, first 2012 assignments
remove access denied (40) and add “turn in” plots (38)
remove access denied (30) and added FS transfer plots (32)
Initial Assignment of 656 plots.
added funds
Purpose
$163,000.00
$102,570.00
$378,700.00
$339,275.00
$163,000.00
$163,000.00
$102,570.00
$828,676.00
$828,676.00
$828,676.00
$828,676.00
$828,676.00
$828,676.00
$828,676.00
$828,676.00
$727,510.00
$727,510.00
$552,000.00
$552,000.00
$552,000.00
$552,000.00
$552,000.00
$828,676.00
Contract Value
$163,000.00
$101,000.00
$828,316.00
$828,061.00
$828,379.00
$828,650.00
$828,034.00
$828,576.00
$828,617.00
$828,622.00
$727,473.00
$727,063.00
$551,613.00
$551,208.00
$551,801.00
$551,504.00
$547,323.00
Value assigned
$62,000.00
$39,425.00
$176,275.00
$60,430.00
$255.00
($318.00)
($271.00)
$616.00
($542.00)
($41.00)
($5.00)
$101,149.00
$410.00
$175,450.00
$405.00
($593.00)
$297.00
$4,181.00
change in
value
11/2/2011
5/19/2011
10/11/2012
4/1/2012
12/8/2011
10/6/2011
4/19/2011
11/16/2012
11/11/2012
10/31/2012
10/15/2012
10/9/2012
9/4/2012
6/13/2012
6/1/2012
5/10/2012
4/24/2012
4/10/2012
2/20/2012
9/7/2011
8/8/2011
5/16/2011
5/17/2012
Signed by
Contractor
11/4/2011
5/25/2011
10/17/2012
4/17/2012
12/22/2011
10/25/2011
5/12/2011
11/27/2012
11/21/2012
11/2/2012
10/18/2012
10/16/2012
9/11/2012
6/25/2012
6/5/2012
5/11/2012
4/24/2012
4/12/2012
2/24/2012
9/12/2011
8/16/2011
5/18/2011
5/30/2012
Effective
Date
23
Amend 1
Amend 2
Amend 3
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
PSA
AmendmentPSA
AmendmentPSA
AmendmentPSA
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
Work Order
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
SBH Contracting
SBH Contracting
SBH Contracting
SBH Contracting
SBH Contracting
SBH Contracting
SBH Contracting
SBH Contracting
SBH Contracting
SBH Contracting
Work Order
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
wo #6
wo #5
wo #4
wo #3
wo #2
wo #1
wo#12
wo#11
wo#10
wo #9
wo #8
wo #7
wo #6
wo #5
wo #4
wo #3
Work Order
wo #2
Change
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
Type
Work Order
r
South Wind Conservation, Inc.
Contracto
Table 4—Contract Documents (Continued).
11-521-99990239
Contract ID
$110,000.00
$204,450.00
new assignments
$110,000.00
$76,000.00
$76,000.00
$76,000.00
$204,450.00
$110,000.00
$110,000.00
$76,000.00
$378,700.00
$378,700.00
$378,700.00
$339,275.00
$339,275.00
$339,275.00
$339,275.00
$163,000.00
$163,000.00
$163,000.00
$163,000.00
Contract Value
remove all 2010-11 plots, first 2012 assignments
add plots for new funding
Remove 11 (Taos) plots and add 18 plots.
Remove 22 access denied plots and add 15 additional plots.
Initial plot assignments.
added funds
extend date to 12/31/12
added funds
Initial PSA, assign value to contract.
replace access denied
replace access denied
new assignments
replace access denied
replace access denied
replace access denied
new assignments
replace access denied
remove all 2010-11 plots, first 2012 assignments
Move Ute Mtn plots
3 new Animas plots + wilderness plots
Purpose
$203,200.00
$109,950.00
$106,300.00
$73,600.00
$66,400.00
$75,200.00
$378,725.92
$378,467.00
$378,700.00
$339,150.00
$338,600.00
$338,300.00
$339,100.00
$163,000.00
$161,825.00
$153,925.00
$163,000.00
Value assigned
$93,250.00
$3,650.00
$32,700.00
$7,200.00
($8,800.00)
$258.92
($233.00)
$39,550.00
$550.00
$300.00
($800.00)
$176,100.00
$1,175.00
$7,900.00
($9,075.00)
$62,000.00
change in
value
4/12/2012
2/14/2012
11/4/2011
8/31/2011
8/5/2011
5/30/2011
3/12/2012
12/5/2011
10/14/2011
5/3/2011
11/26/2012
11/7/2012
10/26/2012
9/1/2012
7/20/2012
6/18/2012
4/28/2012
3/19/2012
2/16/2012
11/25/2011
11/2/2011
Signed by
Contractor
4/17/2012
2/16/2012
11/8/2011
9/2/2011
8/16/2011
6/3/2011
4/4/2012
12/22/2011
10/28/2011
5/23/2011
11/29/2012
11/21/2012
10/30/2012
9/13/2012
7/26/2012
6/25/2012
5/4/2012
3/23/2012
2/16/2012
11/28/2011
11/4/2011
Effective
Date
This study would be modeled after similar post-fire studies in other
regions. In 2012, after determining that the special collection for post
fire information was not ready to occur, project managers added approximately 90 plots from the 2014 panel into the pool. Therefore, the
ARRA project and the combined efforts of the Forest Service FIA crews
were able to collect 9 out of 10 panels and to start collections on the
10th panel. The plans are for the FS FIA crews to complete the 2014
panel and possibly the additional re-measurement of burned plots during the field seasons of 2013 and 2014. During the field season of
2015, crews will start the second cycle of measurements with the 2005
panel. This will put the State on the annual collections cycle in congruence with the rest of the nation’s program.
Together, both agencies attempted data collection on 6,456 plots, and
actually visited or attempted to visit 5,468 plots (access was denied
on 988 plots)5. Contractors working for the State gathered data on
3, 9866 plots (including 145 blind check plots) over the course of the
3-year program. Table 5 breaks out the accomplishments by year and
by contractor or organization. Management of the program included
the use of extensive databases. Although much specific information in
those databases is not public information and protected by the Food
and Drug Act, the databases are described in Appendix K along with
the color coding that was used for tracking specific information.
Jobs Created/Retained
The primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs. Between
the contractors hired and Tribal participation, there was a total of 50
different individuals that worked on this project. The requirement
for reporting “Number of Jobs” was based on a formula used to avoid
overstating the number of other than full-time, permanent jobs. The
calculation converts part-time and temporary jobs into fractional “fulltime equivalent” (FTE) jobs. The total number of hours worked by
a person in the current reporting quarter was divided by a full-time
schedule of 520 hours. Table 6 shows the total hours reported, by quarter as per the FTE calculation.
5 These
numbers are presented from a State contracting perspective, and include plots that the State paid for (blind plots, nonforest plots, and hazardous
plots) but does not include access denied plots for the plots visited value.
There were 20 plots that were hazardous; following standard FIA conventions,
they would be tallied with access denied plots for a non-sampled value. There
were also 176 blind plots included.
6
This number follows the conventions described above with the exception
of removing five plots that were paid for, but did not have data entered into
the final database.
24
Table 5—Plots completed by year and contractor.
Contract company
2012
2011
2010
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
625
810
416
Mescalero Apache Tribe
0
37
4
Navajo Nation
31
158
0
Colorado State Forest Service
8
12
149
South Wind
313
678
227
Pueblo of Santa Clara
6
0
0
SBH
106
91
0
SWCA
0
329
156
USFS
56
371
645
Office entered nonvisits
509
330
120
Table 6—FTE grand totals
for each quarter.
Quarter
FTE total
2010-Q1
0
2010-Q2
3.65
2010-Q3
19.77
2010-Q4
14.7
2011-Q1
19.18
2011-Q2
20.86
2011-Q3
26.64
2011-Q4
18.63
2012-Q1
4.71
2012-Q2
12.48
2012-Q3
6.14
2012-Q4
10.89
2013-Q1
0.02
2013-Q2
0
Discussion
Projects Considered But Not Implemented
When the State received the ARRA grant for developing the FIA database, the initial thought was that a portion of the data would be
collected, and that part of the project would also work on some of the
data analysis issues. Several additional projects were considered, but
the final outcome was to prioritize the collection of P2 data and to get
as much data collected as possible. These projects are briefly discussed
here to document the need and thought process behind these ideas.
25
Collecting Additional Data Collection for Volume Tables for
Woodland and Forest Species—Based on outside input, the State
considered developing an RFP to address some deficiency issues of
current volume equations for woodland species for estimating biomass
and carbon sequestration. In the end, the decision was to support a
similar process that was being planned by the FIA analysts in Ogden.
The State considered paying for field analysis for some species (in particular one-seed juniper) that would not be done during the regional
field process. However, the protocols necessary for developing an RFP
were not ready in time to add this aspect to the ARRA project.
Revamping the NM Statewide Assessment Based on New Data—
Much of the 2010 New Mexico Natural Resources Assessment was
based on older FIA data. The hope was to develop an RFP that would
take the data collected in the first 2 years of the ARRA project and rerun the analysis for the Statewide Assessment in the third year of the
ARRA project. Delays at a national level in data processing, and delays
in the field in completing the data collection, led the State to decide
not to use ARRA funding for this task. We are hopeful that the State
will find additional funding for this important step in overall natural
resource management visioning for New Mexico.
Remeasuring and Gathering Fire Effects Data for Plots Recently
Burned in Large Fires—In 2011 and 2012 New Mexico experienced
several large landscape fires. In other regions, a procedure known as
AREBA (Accelerated Re-measurement and Evaluation of Burned
Areas) has been developed for re-measuring FIA plots and gathering
immediate feedback on the fire’s impact. Region 3 of the U.S. Forest
Service contacted the State in 2011 and asked if AREBA plots could
be incorporated into the ARRA project. State officials worked with the
regional office to develop protocols, but by mid-2012 had been unable
to produce a functional field procedure for adding the plots to the program. At that time, the decision was to add plots from the 2014 panel
to the ARRA contracts, and ask the FIA crews to do the AREBA plots
in 2013 once the field procedures had been confirmed.
New Mexico FIA User Group Participation
The State recognized that there was broad interest in FIA data among
many natural resource managers and users. An informal group was
created to keep informed on the progress of the FIA inventory and
to solicit input. This group included Tribal representatives, industry
representatives, representatives from the U.S. Forest Service, BLM,
State Land Office, and Forest and Watershed Health Institute. A Users
Group meeting was hosted in March 2012 to solicit input for the
Interior West FIA report writing team.
26
State – Federal Partnership
This project truly manifested as wonderful collaboration between State
and Federal agencies to achieve a shared goal. The teamwork and communication was invaluable. Specific individuals who were involved are
included in the acknowledgment section of this report.
There were several elements of this project that required communication and coordination. At times, funding for one aspect of the job,
such as purchasing additional equipment or funding part-time staff to
help with administration, could not be administratively accomplished
by one agency, but could be accomplished by the other agency. Federal
employees often pitched in to help sort plot packets, manage databases,
etc., when their own workloads were low. The outstanding cooperation
among the partners involved in this study resulted in smooth project
implementation.
Overall, the partnership was successful and could serve as a model for
future collaborations. This project clearly demonstrated the opportunity to utilize alternative sources of funding to collect FIA data. To avoid
future scenarios of data deficit where this extent of special effort is necessary, on-going (i.e. annual) data collection is required to maintain the
temporal and spatial value of forest inventory information. This goal
will require continued collaboration and support from Federal, State,
Tribal and other partners.
Discussion of Access Denied Issues
The high rate of access denied for plots on private and State lands is disappointing. One of the primary reasons State Forestry was interested in
the FIA data was for increased information on State and private lands.
Typically landowner permission is handled by FIA staff. The State offered to take on this role, rationalizing that New Mexico landowners
would be more comfortable dealing with a State agency that provides
services to New Mexico landowners rather than the Federal government. Since there really is no comparable activity in the State, it is hard
to say that the Federal government would have had a better or worse
success rate had that responsibility remained with the Forest Service.
On a positive note, analysts were able to stratify the private land plots
(Goeking and Patterson 2012) to allow measured plots to carry more
weight for similar denied access plots, which provides meaningful
analysis on private land on a State-wide level as well as for individual
counties. There are some large properties where access was denied,
which left some geographic gaps in the data. Unique and significant
27
parts of the State that were under-sampled include the boot heel region, and pieces of woodland in San Miguel, Torrance, Chaves, and
Otero counties.
From a lesson learned standpoint, more aggressive outreach with landowner organizations and landowners may have been useful. We ended
up responding to negative attitudes rather than proactively building
partnerships initially. Interestingly, we believed that organizations that
support ranchers had the most to gain from the survey to provide documentation for initiatives and grants and were quite surprised to find
an adversarial attitude.
Some landowners in areas of grassland with mesquite expressed a sense
of disbelief that we were interested in conducting forest inventory in
those areas. In retrospect, we should have provided specific information in permission request letters that explained the need for data for
these ecosystems.
Future FIA Data Needs for New Mexico
The 2008-2012 inventory has developed a solid baseline data set for
tracking the effects of changing climates; impacts from insects, disease, and wildfires; fuel conditions; and many other forest attributes for
New Mexico. The current plan is to have the USFS FIA crews finish
the final panel and possibly do the AREBA plots that were planned for
2012 over the next two field seasons.
In 2015, there is an opportunity to help the State get started on the
standard FIA data rotation by revisiting the plots in the 2005 panel; in
2016, revisit the plots in the 2006 panel, and so forth. Although that
means the re-measurement interval may only be 3-5 years in 2015, the
forests in the State are rapidly changing due to insects, disease, and
wildfire. Data documenting these changes will help resource managers
target limited funds to the most appropriate issues.
One benefit of the ARRA project has been the capacity for contracting
that has been developed. Already, one company involved in the New
Mexico ARRA project has submitted successful bids for at least three
additional contracts for FIA plot inventories nationwide. There is a
strong potential that qualified contractors would be available should
the Forest Service decide to contract data collection in New Mexico in
the future.
28
Potential Uses of New FIA Data
The new FIA data creates a comprehensive baseline for tracking the
impact of changing climates on New Mexico forest resources. The data
also provides relevant and current information for basing decisions on
biomass and industry development. The forthcoming New Mexico
forest resources report (Goeking and others 2014) identifies many of
the changes that have been detected since 1999.
It is critical that other tools that utilize FIA data update their information with the new data. One important resource is the LANDFIRE
program, which is used to model fire behavior and make fire management decisions7. These types of national programs need to be made
aware of the unique situation in New Mexico where this new data set
is not yet aligned with the annual inventories. If these programs do not
update their tools, there may be an opportunity to develop functional
work-around adjustments to calibrate the programs for better results
based on the new inventory.
Acknowledgments
The accomplishment of implementing the New Mexico forest inventory was indeed a huge team effort. At the risk of overlooking any
essential player, this section attempts to identify and thank those who
helped this project succeed.
Leadership: Much credit goes to agency and political leaders that
helped get this project off the ground. Former New Mexico State
Forester, Butch Blazer, had the original vision to get this done, and his
successor, New Mexico State Forester Tony Delfin, has continued to
support the program and ensure its completion and success. Interior
West FIA Program Manager Michael Wilson and Rocky Mountain
Research Station Director Sam Foster have ensured Federal support
for the project’s success. The New Mexico congressional delegation,
especially staff from Senator Tom Udall’s and Senator Jeff Bingaman’s
offices, provided the initial support for applying for ARRA grant funding. Resource Management Bureau Chief Kim Kostelnik, succeeded by
Eddie Tudor, provided invaluable direct project support. Mary Stuever
served as the project manager.
7 The P2 down woody data, which is available from the Interior West FIA pro-
gram, represents the largest fuels dataset ever collected in New Mexico. We
strongly recommend an update of LANDFIRE’s fuel layers utilizing this data.
29
State employees: Administratively, this program ran smoothly and efficiently under the capable eye of Natasha Ripple who ensured all ARRA
requirements were met and processed invoices and purchasing documents. Doris Archuleta, Tammy Kessler, and Denise Zendel provided
invaluable help processing the vast number of contracting documents
involved. Andrew Frederick and Lindsey Quam provided capable
back-up support on program management. In the field, District staff
handled plot packets, supported contractors with landowner contacts,
fielded inquiries from landowners, shuttled equipment, and provided
other various help. At the risk of overlooking someone, thanks are extended to Doug Boykin, Nick Smokovich, Todd Haines, Joe Carrillo,
Arnie Friedt, Ernie Lopez, Shannon Atencio, Carmen Austin, Eddie
Tudor, and Susan Rich.
USFS FIA employees: Bob Rhoads, Data Collection Team Leader for
the Interior West FIA program, provided amazing support and collaboration. John Capuano, Area Leader for Arizona and New Mexico,
did much of the heavy lifting and in many ways provided essential
interface between the State and Federal programs. The real heroes
of the project are the inspectors Jim Dexter, Dave Herwig, and John
Capuano. Several other inspectors came to New Mexico to help during
the off-season as well. The Arizona-New Mexico FIA crew, including
Juliet Wilhelm, Vernon Robinson, and others, provided necessary support, and often at a moment’s notice. Many others in the Ogden office
were also fantastic resources: Mark Rubey, TomWuenschell, and Jeremy
Hamblin for MIDAS and database support; Bill Dunning for advice
on all things contracting and field based; Sara Goeking succeeded by
Jennifer Bakken for landowner access and permitting support and for
plot packet preparation; John Shaw and team for analyst insight and
user group outreach; and Michael Wilson and Renee O’Brien for problem solving.
Contractors: Obviously, the project would not have happened without the contractors: Joel and Esther Fyock of Chestnut Ridge Forestry;
Ike Wennihan of South Wind Conservation, Inc.; Stuart Hart of
SBH Contracting; and Coleman Burnett of SWCA Environmental
Consultants. Our Tribal partners added richness to the program that
was invaluable. From an administrative standpoint, we enjoyed working with Alexious Becenti, Frankie Thompson, and Sadie Johnson
of the Navajo Nation; Thora Padilla and Earl Bell of the Mescalero
Apache Tribe; and Michael Chavarria and Bruce Bauer with the Pueblo
of Santa Clara. In addition, despite not getting a working project off
the ground, we appreciate the interest of Mike Henio of Ramah Navajo
Forestry and Sylvia Rains Dennis working with the War Chief of Taos
Pueblo. The crew leaders were of course the major producers of the
30
project and Table 7 lists each crew leader, their employer, and the number of plots they are credited for in MIDAS.
Colorado State Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis Crew:
We wish to thank the FIA crews from the Colorado State Forest Service
for assisting with data collection on plots as we wrapped up our field
seasons each year
Landowners and Land Managers: In the spirit of privacy, we are not
naming names, but our heartfelt gratitude goes out to those landowners, many who managed access to multiple plots, for participating with
us on this project. This includes our Tribal partners, other agency contacts, as well as thousands of New Mexico landowners who recognized
the greater value of completing this inventory and allowed access to
their property.
User’s Group: As stated previously, the New Mexico user’s group is
an informal network without formal membership; however, several
people stepped up to assist with program direction and support including Wayne Robbie of the U.S. Forest Service Southwest Regional
Office, Jeremy Kruger of the BLM’s New Mexico State Office, and
Mark Meyers with the State Land Office.
Reviewers: Special thanks to Sara Goeking and Mark Meyers for reviewing this document and improving its content.
References
Choate, Grover A. 1966. New Mexico’s forest resources. Resour. Bull. INT-5. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Goeking, Sara A.; Shaw, John D.; Witt, Chris; Werstak, Charles; Thompson, Michael
T; Morgan, Todd A.; Sorenson, Colin B.; Menlove, Jim; Amacher, Michael C.;
Stuever, Mary; Hayes, Steven W.; McIver, Chelsea P.; Bailey, Robert G. 2014.
New Mexico’s forest resources, 2008-2012. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-18. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station.
O’Brien, R. A. 2003. New Mexico’s forests, 2000. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-3. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station. 117 p.
31
Table 7—Plots by crew.
Crew
Contractor Company
Production + Blind Plots
Adelson
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
22
Ayotte
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
38
Bell
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
23
Bernhardt
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
34
Biasotti
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
24
Cziperle
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
118
Dolecek
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
296
Fyock
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
1
Gee
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
42
Gosack
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
39
Hastings
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
2
Hayes
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
250
Hutchinson
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
8
Landewe
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
4
Mamerow
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
11
Mclelland
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
9
Mueller
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
152
Nowak
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
78
Oukrop
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
28
Parks
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
155
Quinion
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
97
Romero
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
190
Roth
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
83
Sommerville
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
42
Starn
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
40
Tumenas
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
44
Wagner
Chestnut Ridge Forestry
21
Bernhardt
South Wind
26
Brennan
South Wind
1
Brisbin
South Wind
193
Brown
South Wind
6
Cargill
South Wind
172
Dekoker
South Wind
2
Dolecek
South Wind
4
Hayes
South Wind
7
Howard
South Wind
6
Kesonie
South Wind
16
Macfarland
South Wind
19
North
South Wind
262
Quinion
South Wind
10
Reininger
South Wind
167
Simons
South Wind
13
Sommerville
South Wind
69
Tumenas
South Wind
31
32
Table 7—Plots by crew (Continued).
Crew
Contractor Company
Production + Blind Plots
Wagner
South Wind
125
Wennihan
South Wind
89
Allen
SWCA
111
Amato
SWCA
15
Nietupski
SWCA
95
Stropki
SWCA
148
Timmons
SWCA
116
Cziperle
Mescalero Apache Tribe
16
Dexter
Mescalero Apache Tribe
3
Mendez
Mescalero Apache Tribe
1
Parks
Mescalero Apache Tribe
10
Roth
Mescalero Apache Tribe
6
Starn
Mescalero Apache Tribe
5
Catron
Navajo Nation
2
Dennison
Navajo Nation
17
Fischer
Navajo Nation
1
H.Yazzie
Navajo Nation
37
Jim
Navajo Nation
1
Metteba
Navajo Nation
75
Quintana
Navajo Nation
55
Thomas
Navajo Nation
1
Robinson
Pueblo of Santa Clara
6
Hart
SBH
197
Arnold
USFS
57
Bellcock
USFS
109
Bialach
USFS
54
Conklin
USFS
3
Dexter
USFS
6
Green
USFS
240
Herwig
USFS
18
Holte
USFS
21
Kindt
USFS
69
Lagioia
USFS
40
95
Marshall
USFS
Mazzulla
USFS
27
Office Entered
USFS
959
Robinson
USFS
194
Scott
USFS
20
33
Table 7—Plots by crew (Continued).
Crew
Contractor Company
Production + Blind Plots
Steed
USFS
28
West
USFS
33
Wilhelm
USFS
16
Yazzie
USFS
42
Bell
Colorado State Forest Service
8
Clements
Colorado State Forest Service
17
Dilling
Colorado State Forest Service
34
Hanley
Colorado State Forest Service
23
Harrison
Colorado State Forest Service
7
Rector
Colorado State Forest Service
22
Stout
Colorado State Forest Service
35
Wykhuis
Colorado State Forest Service
23
34
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your
­mailing information in label form through one of the following media.
Please specify the publication title and number.
Telephone (970) 498-1393
E-mail rmrspubrequest@fs.fed.us
Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rmpublications
Mailing Address
Publications Distribution
Rocky Mountain Research Station
240 West Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
*RMRS posted link: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rn068.html
*RMRS publications are also listed in Treesearch
Federal Recycling Program
Printed on Recycled Paper
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination
against its customers, employees, and applicants for emploment on
the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender
identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital
status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of
an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program,
or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or
activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited
bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Research Station